Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-20-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Re: "When and why, according to mythicists, a historical Jesus became part of Christian dogma."

Actually, it has been discussed on many lists. Historicist Christianity arose as the answer to the problem of legitimacy. Since all the Christianities traced their origins back to the legendary first century gospels, the Orthodox solution was to historicize their legendary beginnings in the person of Jesus himself.

Hmm... Are you saying that the HJ comes _after_ the gospels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

This strategy came to full fruition with Luke, who invented the Historical Jesus out of the Narrative Jesus Mark created.

This trend did not occur in a single place or time, but was the result of an evolutionary process that occurred throughout the proto-Orthodox wing of emergent Christianity.

Beware of Occam's Razor. It's a lot more economical to postulate one such event rather than several.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The result of a selection process of the same time that produced many of the specific alterations of the Gospel texts.

Positioning one's invented figures as quasi/historical figures was a common practice in Hellenistic fiction, BTW. When Luke made his move, the tools were already present.
Vorkosigan

Do you have a date for when the Historical Jesus first became a part of the Christian dogma?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-20-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Again criminal activity - treason, denying the gods, wrecking trade at temples, superstition!

Methinks the assertion they were martyrs needs proving! You are not a martyr if you have been tried and punished properly!

And you still don't get it...

We are not discussing here if there were martyrs, but rather _who_ they were.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-20-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why does any totalitarian state harrass dissenters? But we don't know that they were so laid-back and harmless.

So how could these followers of a mythical Saviour be harmful to the Roman state?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christians did end up subverting the ideological basis of the Roman Empire.

Poor logic, Toto.

Because it was the _Catholic_ Christianity that ended up subverting the ideological basis of the Roman Empire! It was certainly not the followers of a mythical Saviour that did this, as far as we know...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

YURI:
...all sorts of inconsistencies and improbabilities begin to emerge in the mythicist alternative history.

Do you think you could give some details on this instead of just asserting it?

I'd prefer it that the mythicists, themselves, supplied for us here the details of their own reconstructions. That's what this thread is all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And why would you expect all mythicists to be on the same page, without a Mythical Pope and a Mythical Inquisition to keep them in line?

It's for the mythicists' own benefit for them to be on the same page. But unfortunately (for them) they aren't.

Regards,

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 05-20-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

We are not discussing here if there were martyrs, but rather _who_ they were.

If there weren't any, there wouldn't be anybody to identify.

Quote:

It's for the mythicists' own benefit for them to be on the same page. But unfortunately (for them) they aren't.

Are you ever going to identify the alleged "prominent atheists" you apparently have in mind?

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-20-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If there weren't any, there wouldn't be anybody to identify.

Are you saying that there weren't any?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Are you ever going to identify the alleged "prominent atheists" you apparently have in mind?

I said nothing about any "prominent atheists".

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 05-20-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Are you saying that there weren't any?

It was clearly an if-then statement calling into question your assertion that questioning whether there were any martyrs is not relevant to your interest in having them named.

It clearly is relevant.

Quote:

I said nothing about any "prominent atheists".

And you couldn't figure out what I meant? Deliberate obtuseness does not become you, Yuri.

Are you ever going to identify the alleged "prominent mythicists" you apparently have in mind?

Ted Hoffman · 05-21-2005, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Are you ever going to identify the alleged "prominent mythicists" you apparently have in mind?

Dont hold your breath. We all know who the "prominent mythicists" are, and their theories. There is nothing Yuri will pull out of a hat. He wrote without thinking. He is criticizing without thinking.

Johann_Kaspar · 05-21-2005, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

So how could these followers of a mythical Saviour be harmful to the Roman state?

:thumbs: Here we are. That is the interesting question. But why nobody is addressing that one

They were "harmful" because they were at war with the Roman empire (depending on the point of view, one can argue that the Roman empire WAS harmful...), and even more "harmful" because of a mythical character being crucified AND resurrected. Surely you know what it is "mourir pour des idées"...

Yuri, in your list of "martyrs" you forgot the ones crucified by Titus and the ones of Massada...

After 888, it is another story.

Clivedurdle · 05-21-2005, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

And you still don't get it...

We are not discussing here if there were martyrs, but rather _who_ they were.

Yuri.

But they were not martyrs - ie no who - IF they were criminals! Martyr is a propaganda phrase used to bolster casualties of one side!

andrewcriddle · 05-21-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But they were not martyrs - ie no who - IF they were criminals! Martyr is a propaganda phrase used to bolster casualties of one side!

I think it makes a difference whether the laws they broke were good laws or bad laws.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.